Thank you for responding to me and pointing out something interesting. Forgive me if I have to ask you for further clarification. You see, the point
you underlined says that the provisions of paragraph one can be waived, but you circled paragraph 2.

Paragraph 1 directs that the military shall hold a person, blah blah blah. So the waiver provision you've pointed out means that the
Secretary of Defense can order a person to be not held if it helps national security.

Thank you for responding to me and pointing out something interesting. Forgive me if I have to ask you for further clarification. You see, the point
you underlined says that the provisions of paragraph one can be waived, but you circled paragraph 2.

Paragraph 1 directs that the military shall hold a person, blah blah blah. So the waiver provision you've pointed out means that the Secretary
of Defense can order a person to be not held if it helps national security.

Am I missing something?

With respect,
Charles1952

You are correct they are REQUIRED to hold a person

..... and ...

that requirement does not extend to US citizens although US citizens CAN be held indefinitely.

Doesn't apply to US citizens and legal aliens...but if you commit a crime, I'm sure you'll be locked up.

The Udall amendment puts the guantanamo bay guys into our civil courts to be tried with the same rights as a US citizen... They deserve to rot in jail
for failing in their terrorist duty of blowing themselves up.

Stop being sheep.

Bump for myself - can't believe so many people get caught up in what is posted in the news vs what is fact. If the Udall amendment is allowed, be
prepared for some really pissed off Guantanamo prisoners to get back at us. I'm sure the civil courts would find no evidence on convicting 99% of
them. Gooooo team!

Check Megamind's reply. This clause waives the "Covered Persons" clause at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, meaning a U.S. Citizen is not
exempt from military arrest under the provisions of the Bill.

If the Udall amendment is allowed, be prepared for some really pissed off Guantanamo prisoners to get back at us. I'm sure the civil courts
would find no evidence on convicting 99% of them.

Yeah, because THEY ARE NOT GUILTY.

Most people at Guantanamo are not guilty of anything. They are just there for the government to say there's really terrorists. Guess what, those
people are not terrorists.

You do know that the US gave thousands of $$ for every ``terrorists`` the Afghans gave to them right? How many Afghans with no money turned their own
mother in for the money? I know a lot of people around here would turn their neighbor in for 10 grand...

Got proof they are terrorists? Then they can stay in jail. No proof? Release. Simple.

The only real terrorists are in Washington DC, Langley and at the FED.

Doesn't apply to US citizens and legal aliens...but if you commit a crime, I'm sure you'll be locked up.

The Udall amendment puts the guantanamo bay guys into our civil courts to be tried with the same rights as a US citizen... They deserve to rot in jail
for failing in their terrorist duty of blowing themselves up.

Stop being sheep.

Bump for myself - can't believe so many people get caught up in what is posted in the news vs what is fact. If the Udall amendment is allowed, be
prepared for some really pissed off Guantanamo prisoners to get back at us. I'm sure the civil courts would find no evidence on convicting 99% of
them. Gooooo team!

How do you know some poor innocent farmer wasn't fingered by someone bent on revenge or turned over to the US for a reward. This isn't justice - its
just us being plain wrong.

If you're a terrorist you should be shown no mercy!
What kind of animals think those things or plan to do things like
that, possibly? I think terrorist should be shot on sight, I know
I would feel safer! Next we can bomb bomb bomb iran and then
hopefully Russia!

Originally posted by mastahunta
If you're a terrorist you should be shown no mercy!
What kind of animals think those things or plan to do things like
that, possibly? I think terrorist should be shot on sight, I know
I would feel safer! Next we can bomb bomb bomb iran and then
hopefully Russia!

sarcasm??

If YOU are accused of being a terrorist are YOU guilty just because someone in the executive branch says you are? If so, what do we need a judicial
branch for?

1032 DOES NOT say that US citizens are exempt only that the REQUIREMENT to hold them is.

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States SHALL hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is
captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending
disposition under the law of war.

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The REQUIREMENT to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United
States.

further more 1031 does not exempt US citizens

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF
MILITARY FORCE.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for
those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the
United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of
such enemy forces.

I'm afraid we're still missing each other, there must be a major misunderstanding.

Check Megamind's reply. This clause waives the "Covered Persons" clause at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense,

It seems to
me that the waiver clause you're referring to says that it waives the provisions of paragraph 1. Are we in agreement there?

But the "Covered Persons" clause is labelled paragraph 2. Are we still good?

So if the waiver clause affects paragraph 1, and the "Covered Persons" clause is paragraph 2, then this clause does not waive the "Covered
Persons" clause. OK?

meaning a U.S. Citizen is not exempt from military arrest under the provisions of the Bill.

This part I agree with. But only if
we're talking about a US citizen who is part of, or collaborating with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or, well you can read the rest of it.

The waiver clause only lets the SecDef spring people from military custody, hand out a "Get out of jail free" card, so to speak. There is no more
authority to detain people than there was ten years ago.

You should be careful. You actually read the bill and offered a comment based on logic, rationality, and the actual context of the bill. Thats not
the way ATS typically works; people tend to read whatever the first line of the OP are, skip to the end, and immediately fear monger without
hesitation.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.